That’s why krishna said to arjuna not to quit war or duty because his rajogun is not evolvev , if he had quit then he also go into comfort zone and tamogun …..I was confused because some people present the fact as new concept opposing all the past mahapurusha …..Pease tell me if my understanding is right or not?
It is true that whether to be in the world or not in the world depends upon one’s unique individual temperament. But it is equally true that when one does yoga while being in the world, difficult though it is, the eventual realisation is wider and more complex. On the other hand, one who withdraws from the world has an apparently easier but a narrower realisation. Both these paths have been already described way before by Sri Krishna enshrined in the ideal of tyaga (inner renunciation) versus sannyas (outer withdrawal). Sri Krishna prefers tyaga over Sannyas but to each his own path.
Affectionately,
Alok Da
Follow up question:
A detached person remains unaffected by worldly matters and does not distinguish between being in the world or not, as both states are the same for him if he is untouched by desires. These states are not in his control; it is determined by his destiny whether he stays in the world or not.
If someone renounces worldly possessions, it can lead them to a state of ignorance, taking their consciousness away from austerity and placing them in a comfort zone. This is why Krishna advised Arjuna against fleeing from battle in the presence of Rajasic tendencies, as only by engaging in battle could he rise above these tendencies; fleeing would lead him to a state of ignorance.
In supplementary yoga, both states can arise. Whether one is in the world or a renunciate depends on their destiny. This was also true in the past, but what is the difference with supplementary yoga?”
Whether to be in the world or out of the world refers to the choice of the path. Supramental transformation, on the other hand refers to the goal. The supramental yoga can be practiced either ways. However withdrawing completely from life, cutting oneself completely from the universal current in search of individual moksha is certainly more along the lines of traditional Yoga goals rather than the supramental yoga.
Seeing the opposition of other disciples towards the great men of the past, I felt that there are some new concepts in supplementary yoga. That’s why I asked you this question.
I don’t know the reason for virodh etc. But it is true that the supramental yoga is different from other yogas in terms of the goal and the path. Otherwise there was no need of this yoga at all if what it proposes has already been realised. Of course not all are called for this yoga and each is free to follow their path. But one must not confuse it to be all the same thing because there are some common elements in this yoga and other paths.
Here is a letter of Sri Aurobindo explaining this briefly.
‘It is new as compared with the old Yogas:
(1) Because it aims not at a departure out of world and life into a Heaven or a Nirvana, but at a change of life and existence, not as something subordinate or incidental, but as a distinct and central object. If there is a descent in other Yogas, yet it is only an incident on the way or resulting from the ascent—the ascent is the real thing. Here the ascent is indispensable, but what is decisive, what is finally aimed at is the resulting descent. It is the descent of the new consciousness attained by the ascent that is the stamp and seal of the sadhana. Even Tantra and Vaishnavism end in the release from life; here the object is the divine fulfilment of life.
(2) Because the object sought after is not an individual achievement of divine realisation for the sole sake of the individual, but something to be gained for the earth-consciousness here, a cosmic, not solely a supra-cosmic achievement. The thing to be gained also is the bringing in of a Power of consciousness (the supramental) not yet organised or active directly in earth-nature, even in the spiritual life, but yet to be organised and made directly active.
(3) Because a method has been preconised for achieving this purpose which is as total and integral as the aim set before it, viz. the total and integral change of the consciousness and nature, taking up old methods but only as a part action and passing on to others that are distinctive. I have not found this method (as a whole) or anything like it in its totality proposed or realised in the old Yogas. If I had I should not have wasted my time in hewing out a road and in thirty years of search and inner creation when I could have hastened home safely to my goal in an easy canter over paths already blazed out, laid down, perfectly mapped, macadamised, made secure and public. Our Yoga is not a retreading of old walks, but a spiritual adventure.’
Affectionately,
Alok Da
But buddha and there are so many examples of saints had a greater realisation sir so is it exception …
I am not sure what you mean by greater realisation? Buddha had Nirvana but there are other realisations that Buddha did not even strive for, for example, the One Divine everywhere mentioned in the Gita which is a realisation greater than the Brahmanirvana which is also found by the way of the Gita. The Rishis of the Upanishads especially Yagnavalkya who remained very much connected with life goes very far if one reads the Isha Upanishad. I am not even speaking of Sri Aurobindo who had both the realisations of the Buddha and the Gita and others while active in politics. The Mother had, apart from these two mentioned above, the highest realisation of Tantra and the Kundalini Yoga among others even before coming to Pondicherry. Besides Buddha never withdrew from the world except temporarily during his search. If you read his life carefully you would see that he initially tried the ascetic way and found nothing. Subsequently he came back to the world as one of the most influential world-teacher. The path he preached was not of ascetic withdrawal or shunning the world but the middle path of balance and moderation, of right perception and right action (not withdrawal from action). His son himself became a Buddha and later his wife as well. So i don’t understand the analogy and the conclusion. Most importantly your initial question was with regard to the supramental yoga of which Buddha had no idea or an inclination.
Now of course you can follow whatever path you wish to follow including the path of most austere asceticism. That is understood. But we should not confuse Sri Aurobindo’s path with a path of ascetic withdrawal or the supramental realisation as something that has already been achieved by the past yogis.
Affectionately,
Alok Da
